My reading of this new language is that cross-compilers, such as the Flash-to-iPhone compiler in Adobe’s upcoming Flash Professional CS5 release, are prohibited. This also bans apps compiled using MonoTouch — a tool that compiles C# and .NET apps to the iPhone. It’s unclear what this means for tools like Titanium and PhoneGap, which let developers write JavaScript code that runs in WebKit inside a native iPhone app wrapper. They might be OK. This tweet from the PhoneGap Twitter account suggests they’re not worried. The folks at Appcelerator realize, though, that they might be out of bounds with Titanium. Ansca’s Corona SDK, which lets you write iPhone apps using Lua, strikes me as out of bounds.

I'm kind of glad that Apple is laying down the law with respect to how applications are created. The reality is that the iPhone, and most mobile devices, are still pretty underpowered in terms of processing power. The iPhone makes use of a lot of little tricks to seem much faster than it is. The whole purpose of forcing developers to write in a compiled language and limit functionality is speed. One day we won't have to worry about processing power and memory, but right now we do. Apple's decision to use C instead of Java is why the iPhone seems so much faster than a BlackBerry or Android phone. Flash and Adobe AIR have abysmal performance on Android. One runtime running on top of another. It's horrible, just horrible.

It will be awesome when the iPhone has the hardware capabilities to run things like Java and Python at lightning fast speeds, but that day is not today. I really don't understand all the crying about Apple trying to set a minimum standard for applications.

During a special media event held today in Cupertino, Apple unveiled details about the next major update to the iPhone OS that powers its iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad mobile devices. Slated to arrive sometime this summer for the iPhone and iPod touch, the update will give developers access to over 1,500 new APIs to improve and extend the capabilities of their apps, as well as give users over 100 new features like multitasking and improved enterprise support.

Awesome. Just awesome. The only bad part is that it won't be released for a few months. I find the iPhone OS 4.0 announcement far more interesting than the iPad announcement. The iPad really isn't that impressive without this software update.

I'm a full-time Flash developer and I'd love to get paid to make Flash sites for the iPad. I want that to make sense — but it doesn't. Flash on the iPad will not (and should not) happen — and the main reason, as I see it, is one that never gets talked about: current Flash sites could never be made to work well on any touchscreen device, and this cannot be solved by Apple, Adobe, or magical new hardware. That's not because of slow mobile performance, battery drain or crashes. It's because of the hover or mouseover problem. ... All that Apple and Adobe could ever do is make current Flash content visible. It would be seen, but very often would not work.

Having recently had the opportunity to actually play with Flash on and Android phone, I couldn't agree more. But it's not hover and mouse-over that's really the problem. That same problem exists with HTML and JavaScript too. The real problem is that Flash is a plug-in that needs to capture input to work properly. That means there's an extra 'tap' that has to happen just to let the browser know that you want to interact with the Flash embed and not the browser. So while double tapping might normally zoom in and out, now it just tells the browser to capture the touch input and then release it. How do you tell the device that you want your tap or pinch to interact with the browser window and not the Flash window, and vice versa?

The only way to bring the Flash plug-in to mobile devices is by creating an on-screen UI specifically for interacting with Flash embeds. And once you do that the user experience is so poor that it's just not worth the trouble.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Adobe actually wants to get Flash on the iPhone (or cares at all about the user experience on Android) it needs to open source the runtime and push towards getting Flash integrated directly with WebKit itself.

Today, we're excited to introduce the Google Voice web app for the iPhone and Palm WebOS devices. This HTML5 application provides you with a fast and versatile mobile experience for Google Voice because it uses the latest advancements in web technologies. For example, AppCache lets you interact with web apps without a network connection and local databases allow you to store data locally on the device, so you don't lose data even when you close the browser.

This is just the first step. Once Google fully integrates the recently acquired Gizmo Project into Google Voice, it's going to completely change VoIP in a lot of the ways Skype always hoped to. Google Voice is going to do for voice what Gmail did for email—set a new standard for how communication is supposed to operate and push the entire market forward.

Looks pretty cool, but I won't be impressed with Square unless they make good on their promise and create a payment processing platform that doesn't require you to be an authorized merchant. I can't figure out how that's possible, and why Visa, Mastercard and American Express would agree to something like this. The hardware and software really isn't that impressive, and VeriFone's PAYware Mobile has beat them to the punch.

If Square actually makes it to market it's going to be more of a triumph in finance and risk management than anything else. Hopefully they won't do something stupid like hold your money for 30-days or take a massive percentage of every sale to process the card. And hopefully credit card fraud won't increase by 1000%. Hopefully.

Well, today we're pleased to announce a new way for consumers to purchase a mobile phone through a Google hosted web store. The goal of this new consumer channel is to provide an efficient way to connect Google's online users with selected Android devices. We also want to make the overall user experience simple: a simple purchasing process, simple service plans from operators, simple and worry-free delivery and start-up.

The first phone we'll be selling through this new web store is the Nexus One — a convergence point for mobile technology, apps and the Internet. Nexus One is an exemplar of what's possible on mobile devices through Android — when cool apps meet a fast, bright and connected computer that fits in your pocket. The Nexus One belongs in the emerging class of devices which we call "superphones." It's the first in what we expect to be a series of products which we will bring to market with our operator and hardware partners and sell through our online store.

Today Google launched the Nexus One, in collaboration with HTC. Built by HTC, designed and branded by Google, and launched on T-Mobile's network, they now have their own "superphone".

I don't see the big deal. TechCrunch's Michael Arrington seems to like it so much that you get the impression that he'd marry it if he could, while Engadget is considerably less impressed. Honestly, I don't see the big deal. It's yet another Android phone. That's not a bad thing per se, and it's the best Android phone to date, but it's also nothing to get excited about.

My biggest problem with the new device is that it has even worse stated battery life than the iPhone – in some cases, 33% less. How is this even remotely acceptable anymore? The reason I moved away from the iPhone was because the battery life was abysmal. You can't rely on a phone when it's dead. The Nexus One has a beautiful 800x480 OLED display... but what good is it if you have to set the brightness to 10%?

What is pretty cool is that this shows actual progress towards a more open mobile communication structure in the US. The Nexus One probably wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for T-Mobile, who has will fully support, and even subsidize the fully unlocked device. T-Mobile recently changed their business mode in a wayl which provides support for unlocked devices by providing low cost, no contract plans for voice, text and data.

As someone who now uses T-Mobile, I'm glad to see that there are more big releases coming to the only carrier willing to sell unlocked, unhindered devices, but I'm not about to rush out and buy a phone that will be dead before lunch time.

Technologies tend to be global, both by nature and by name. Say “television”, “computer” or “internet” anywhere and chances are you will be understood. But hand-held phones? For this ubiquitous technology, mankind suffers from a Tower of Babel syndrome. Under millions of Christmas trees North and South Americans have been unwrapping cell phones or celulares. Yet to Britons and Spaniards they are mobiles or móviles. Germans and Finns refer to them as Handys and kännykät, respectively, because they fit in your hand. The Chinese, too, make calls on a sho ji, or “hand machine”. And in Japan the term of art is keitai, which roughly means “something you can carry with you”.

... Mobile phones do not share a single global moniker because the origins of their names are deeply cultural. “Cellular” refers to how modern wireless networks are built, pointing to a technological worldview in America. “Mobile” emphasises that the device is untethered, which fits the roaming, once-imperial British style. Handy highlights the importance of functionality, much appreciated in Germany. But are such differences more than cosmetic? And will they persist or give way to a global mobile culture?

Everyone feels the impending mobile revolution. As notebooks have largely replaced the need for desktops, so too will mobile phones supplant both. But how exactly that will happens isn't quite clear. People around the world use mobile phones differently. The concept of what a a mobile phone is for is different around the world. Can a revolution really happen without a clear consensus of what a mobile phone is for?

Google's Android may present a solution to this problem. Google's vision for Android extends beyond today's elite HTC smart-phones. They have expressed interest in creating a future for Android where all phones are "smart phones". Since Android runs on Java, this is actually possible. If a device has a fast enough CPU and enough memory, in theory, it can run the full Android operating system. Ten years from now the phones sold for $49 in the checkout lane at the supermarket will be capable of running an Android-like operating system.

When Apple came out with the iPod, it created what seemed like an entirely new market. Even today, there are "digital audio players" and then there are iPods. Apple's branding has lead consumers to see them as almost being two distinct kinds of products, and the iPod is now known around the world. Could we see the same thing in the mobile market in the not to distant future? A future in which there are mobile phones and there are Android phones? Can Google do for the mobile market what Apple did with the iPod?

I have no idea. Here's to finding out in the next decade.

Happy New Year.

Material wealth creation / destruction should surpass earlier computing cycles. The mobile Internet cycle, the 5th cycle in 50 years, is just starting. Winners in each cycle often create more market capitalization than in the last. New winners emerge, some incumbents survive – or thrive – while many past winners falter.

The mobile Internet is ramping faster than desktop Internet did, and we believe more users may connect to the Internet via mobile devices than desktop PCs within 5 years.

Five IP-based products / services are growing / converging and providing the underpinnings for dramatic growth in mobile Internet usage – 3G adoption + social networking + video + VoIP + impressive mobile devices.

Apple + Facebook platforms serving to raise the bar for how users connect / communicate – their respective ramps in user and developer engagement may be unprecedented.

Decade-plus Internet usage / monetization ramps for mobile Internet in Japan plus desktop Internet in developed markets provide roadmaps for global ramp and monetization.

Massive mobile data growth is driving transitions for carriers and equipment providers.

Emerging markets have material potential for mobile Internet user growth. Low penetration of fixed-line telephone and already vibrant mobile value-added services mean that for many EM users and SMEs, the Internet will be mobile.

I guess we've still got five years. Until then, most large companies will continue to pay for (and agencies will continue to produce) Flash-based web experiences that a limited number of people want spend time with; and never bother to run any kind of quantitatively sound analysis to find out how they actually performed. Oh well, such is life.

What worries me is that there is a shift underway from Flashy (pun intended) websites to flashy iPhone applications – again, that few people want to spend time with. You've got companies out there creating iPhone applications that don't need to exist, and others out there trying to create applications that run on every mobile operating system. Yelp, I'm looking at you.

At least there is a reason for the Yelp applications to exist, since not all mobile devices can access features like GPS through the browser (although both iPhone and Andorid-based devices can). But what I hate about Yelp is that the user experience isn't consistent across platforms. It's not even really well thought out. If you switch phones, you get an entirely new Yelp experience. And I don't blame them, because it's ridiculous to expect a small, venture-backed company to develop applications simultaneously across 5-different platforms and maintain a consistent feature set.

Personally, I reject the idea of native application development as a philosophy. That's not to say I think native applications shouldn't exist – they should. But they should only exist if they need to exist. If you need to access functions on a platform that can't be access through the browser then it makes sense. Otherwise, I subscribe to Google's philosophy on mobile: Focus on creating great web-based user experiences. Four of the six major smart-phone operating systems now render web pages with WebKit (BlackBerry OS and Windows Mobile being the exceptions). Shouldn't the focus be on developing and optimizing for WebKit? Instead of having to fight for space on the home screen of someone's device, and risk being deleted for a new application, you can develop a mobile web presence that users can come back to at any time; and more importantly – one which can be easily iterated on. If a native application is to exist, it should be only part of a mobile web strategy, not the entire thing.

Also, if you ever wanted to download a 659-slide powerpoint presentation on mobile from one of the largest global financing services companies, Morgan Stanely, now you can. Just head on over here. So next time you have a client that's resistant to the idea of creating a mobile presence, just forward them this deck. Remember to put, "LOLWUT" in the subject. :)